Do we only send ‘nice’ Indian films to the Oscars?

Dec 12, 2012, 12.00AM ISTTNN[ Aarushi Nigam ]

Barfi! is India's official entry for Oscars.

We've only been nominated thrice in around six decades, never won, and yet, it makes filmmakers care so much they hurl the juiciest insults at each other once every year. The Best Foreign Film category at the Academy Awards looks to be a perpetual thorn in the backside of the desi film industry. However, we'd like to clarify - we're not taking up the case for the aggrieved parties who're upset each year because their film was 'better' just because they think so, or made more money, as if that's what the Oscars were after.

But take a close look, and the pattern's not hard to see. Over the years, voices have become louder about only a certain genre of films making the cut. They are either National Geographic-type culture tours for the goras (the Paheli, Eklavya, Devdas or Peepli Live variety), or have to show India in a positive light (because we are not like the bad gangs in Gangs Of Wasseypur), or have to leave you feeling warm and all-izz-well-with-the-world, such as Barfi!'s Barfi and Jhilmil do as they trip across life, overcoming disability with nothing but love. That explains why some complain that Satyajit Ray's films only figured thrice in the official entries because so many of his works were about India's poverty. Oh, and also, if you're a big ticket production, your chances are better. In recent years, many small budget sparklers that could have equalled the best in world cinema have lost out because they don't have the influence of an A-list venture.

Maybe because the only three nominees ever - Mother India (1957), Salaam Bombay (1988) and Lagaan (2001) - were irresistible exotic fare for Westerners with their Indian history and setting, the Film Federation of India (FFI) seems to believe that 'India' sells at the Oscars, perhaps forgetting that the nominees also happened to be great cinematically. The point is, picking only a certain kind of film would be OK too, as long as it won us something. If it's just about sticking to a formula, you'd think the FFI would have got that right by now.

When the 'best' we had to offer was

Jeans,(1998): Don't ask how. No one has ever been able to find an explanation - plausible or implausible. Sometimes, s**t happens. And it happened to films like Satya and Astitva, which were no match for Jeans, a film we still don't know what to make of.

Devdas, (2002): Pipped the likes of The Legend Of Bhagat Singh, because, obviously, the latter neither had the grandiose diamante-and-mirror encrusted sets nor the bejeweled damsels. After all, the year before, the dripping-of-desi Lagaan was nominated, so it only makes sense to keep repeating, na.

Paheli (2005): It was savaged by both audiences and critics, but was chosen over Swades, Parineeta and Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, because "it represented the Indian ethos", explained Vinod Pandey, then chairman of the Film Federation of India.

Rang De Basanti (2006): Patriotism in today's age is so rare, it needs to be celebrated. The other films in the shortlist which were rejected included Lagey Raho Munnabhai - whose producers were so upset they sent it independently - and Omkara, which couldn't have stood a chance because of all that dark-shark business and its guns and gaalis. Interestingly, while India didn't even allow Water to be shot on its shores, the tale of the widows of Varanasi was Canada's official entry that year. And it found place on the nine-film shortlist before the final nominations, while RDB lost out. Think we'd have ever let such a 'negative portrayal' go if it was our film?

Eklavya - The Royal Guard(2007): One of the biggest flops of the year trumped over Chak De! India and Gandhi My Father, we guess because of that damned thing called the Indian ethos, again. The big banner film was nearly withdrawn because the Bombay High Court found evidence of the selection being biased.

Peepli live (2010): By now, you must have noticed that all of the above aren't really small-scale. Peepli Live also had Aamir Khan as producer. It was slammed for having nothing new, and for driving out a small-budget gem like Udaan. Aah, but we forget. There was none of that aforementioned Indian ethos in Udaan. Peepli, on the other hand, gave a 360-degree view of how the natives eat, sleep, live and even defecate in our villages.

Barfi! (2012): You've read the testimonials by the FFI, but what many are asking is, even though it's a fine film, don't the frame-by-frame 'homage scenes' to European and Hollywood films hurt its chances at the Oscars? If only originals like GOW or Paan Singh Tomar had more feel-good - like maybe, so many people didn't have to die, did they?

Get a life, selectors

Rituparno Ghosh: Ever since Lagaan got nominated, it has become Bollywood's birthright to represent India at the Oscars.

Anurag Kashyap: A GOW will never be selected from India, because our Indian morality will not endorse it on an international platform. Jo film international platform pe jaati hai, it becomes a film 'from India'. Unka yeh hota hai ki, arre, hum aise hain, hum log gaali dete hain? Hum log maarte hain? Hum log violent hain? None of the films dealing with violence have ever been entered from India. It's always nice, it's always the film about good in the end. It was quite clear that agar Barfi! enter hui toh Barfi! jaaegi, because of the feel-good funda and also because of the kind of films that have won at the Oscars. Artist jeeti hai,Amelie jeeti hai. Every time, they are characters who have some kind of a physical challenge.

Manoj Bajpayee: My expectations from the (selection) process have been not so high after Satya was not sent as our Oscar entry, and Jeans was instead. After that, I said, who says it's a perfect world? (In Barfi!'s case) I don't understand this. Either you say that this is the best film this year. But to say we are sending this 'type' of film since we think it has a better chance of winning something - I don't agree with that. Don't say 'this type of film' works there so we're sending it. You are then also insulting the people associated with the film. Stand by the choice, say it is the best. They don't do that either.

Thanks for proving our point

Manju Borah (who headed the selection committee):Barfi! was endearing and joyful. It collectively had all the elements. Too dark, stark or real subjects didn't touch the jury's heart."

L Suresh(jury member and former FFI president): Usually, films about handicaps are heavy, but we felt Barfi! was very lively. It doesn't make you sad at all.

PS: Is the committee run by 'veterans' or by toddlers who need a happy ending?